Splitting Touring Revenues?!?

[rgraves]

Hi all,

I have a question and I didn't know where else to post it. It's about touring. I guess I always thought that when a band goes touring, they just split everything equally or something, and I am finding out that not even close to true, depending on the band.

I am trying to see if anyone knows what the standard way to split revenues are in different circumstances. Specifically for example a band where there is only one singer/songwriter. For example a band like Dave Matthews or Joe Satriani, where one person writes everything and the other guys are just there to play it.
And the second example would be like Metallica for instance. James Hetfield and Lars are credited for the vast majority of the songwriting, does that mean Kirk and whoever is the bass player get less on touring? Is this decided differently in every band?

Help me out here,

Thanks!

[DavidK]

It doesnt matter who wrote what. Rod Stewart doesnt write many songs, but obviously he is gonna get 95% of the dough. In big acts, each person probably negotiates a minimum set fee for a performance, regardless of attendance.

Boy George, Gwen Stefani, Phil Collins made a LOT more than their no-name band members. Songwriters get paid by ASCAP, BMI etc, it has nothing to do with the concert or the attendance.

[rgraves]

Thanks for the reply... I realize Rod Stewart and such get 95% of the money in such a case.

But what about an normal band where everyone is somewhat equal in popularity, like Metallica for example. Do you think they split it more equally?

Also, what about a person who is going in the Rod Stewart direction so to speak (haha, minus the musical style.) Do you think it would be fair for a no name band to have a singer songwriter that comes up with all the songs and just has a band to play them pay only 5% to the rest of the band when you are only breaking up $1000 per show? That definately would not work when dealing with a smaller amount of money.

Sorry to pick everyone's brain on this, but it seems like info like this is very hard to come by, and I would like to know what would be fair before giving any advise about this kind of stuff.

Thanks again!

[DavidK]

Originally Posted by rgraves

But what about an normal band where everyone is somewhat equal in popularity, like Metallica for example. Do you think they split it more equally?

If you mean the local bar band, they probably split it more equally. I am not familiar with Metallica. In a band like Genesis, I guarantee you that Phill Collins makes a lot more, and he is not the primary composer. The Supremes? Diana Ross wanted about 5000% more than the others, I know that for a fact. There is always a "star", whether it is the front man or Eddie Van Halen. I dont know Guns n Roses but I have heard of Slash, he must make more than the drummer.

Do you think it would be fair for a no name band to have a singer songwriter that comes up with all the songs and just has a band to play them pay only 5% to the rest of the band when you are only breaking up $1000 per show? That definately would not work when dealing with a smaller amount of money.

"Fair" and "music" do not go together. It may not be "practical" to pay the backing band peanuts as you might not get the quality. Then again, a lot of people work for beer or crap so you never know.

I am a musician for hire. I play shows for a set amount, I am a union member. The audience doesnt matter, it could be 3 people or 10,000 and I get the same check. I am playing the Arena here in December, it will be a huge crowd but I get my usual pay. Last week I played at a huge venue but nobody showed up. I still get my same pay. So, the solo/Rod Stewart acts are responisble for HIRING a band and paying them. If nobody shows, they ( the soloist) lose money or cancel the remaining gigs.

I am a symphony player. In the orchestra, we are all making different amounts, some people make WAY more than the others, even though we are a "band". By "way more" I mean 300% more.

I have a quartet. 3 get paid the same, one gets twice as much. He handles all the business stuff, musically we are equal. He gets the check, writes us checks, makes the calls, brings the music, deals with the venue. For that he gets double money and we dont complain, its a tough job.

Bottom line: If you do a few of these a year, it doesnt matter and you can split the dough. If you do it for a living (like me) and are doing 200+ shows a year, you want to get as much as humanly possible for YOU. I dont care what my orchestra colleagues make, I care what I make.

[JoeBannon]

Originally Posted by rgraves

I am trying to see if anyone knows what the standard way to split revenues are in different circumstances. Specifically for example a band where there is only one singer/songwriter. For example a band like Dave Matthews or Joe Satriani, where one person writes everything and the other guys are just there to play it.
And the second example would be like Metallica for instance. James Hetfield and Lars are credited for the vast majority of the songwriting, does that mean Kirk and whoever is the bass player get less on touring? Is this decided differently in every band?

You are correct, but remember that not every band is the some. Some are like a corporation... each member having an equal share and thus split everything equally. DavidK is right, nothing is fair in this biz.

BTW, I own my band 100%. I did it the other way first and it just had too many trying to drive the bus. This way I'm responsible and I get ALL the rewards. I pay the band members a set rate for doing shows and I keep back ups as well.

Oh, that reminds me... I did have a drummer that thought he was entitled to a percentage of the CD sales. But he didn't write the songs, or do anything related to their production. He gets nothing from sales and if he doesn't like it, I'll replace him. End of story.

[JoeBannon]

BTW, this type of question would do better in the dragon cave and you'll get more responses there.

[mikeh]

It depends on so many things. Who owns/provides the PA? Who provides the vehicle(s) used in touring. Are there one or two original or key members?

I've toured with bands in which we all formed the band together, and once expenses were taken off the top we split everything even. I also toured in bands in which I was simply a sideman and I negotiated what I thought was a fair price time and energy - it turns out I normally always grossly underestimated - and in the end I almost always got screwed - my own fault.

I'll never forget back in about 1976, I got a call to tour as the drummer for the Four Tops (they were big in the 60's - but by 1976 not so much). They offered me $250 a week, plus an extra $50 if I was willing to tow the gear trailer with my car.

I turned it down because I was making more than that playing 4 nights a week in town (sleeping in my own bed). But it is a good example of how poorly a sideman can be paid - even when working with a "name" international act.

[jamesduysen]

I know of a smaller touring band called the josh davis band...He pays for everything(hotels, gas, merch, etc) so he keeps most of the doe...his musicians make a certain percentage per show...but not nearly as much a josh because he is the main song writer...the other members are more like employees...

[FALKEN]

often the players get a flat fee while the "leader" will take the risk/return because the players aren't really there to risk anything; they're just there to get paid. Now, if you are in a band where the players are willing to risk something, then you might get a "split" of revenue and that is going to be based on what you can negotiate with your crew.